I held out for as long as possible, but a few months ago, I allowed my 11yr old son to open a Facebook account (their ‘terms of service’ state they have to be 13). Frankly, I was just as concerned about the necessity of lying about his age as I was about the safety issues, and even more so about the temptation to spend yet more time in front of a screen.
So why did I do it? He was leaving his old school, upset about losing touch with his friends, and wanting to make new ones easily. I wanted to ease the transition for him and so agreed as long as I could be his friend. I now monitor his usage and trawl through his friends making sure I know (or at least he knows) them all. I don’t feel good about it, but at least I have so far resisted the demand for a Smart Phone, which the vast majority of his friends already have.
The issue of underage use of Facebook was raised again in the press last week. It crops up every now and then, as one of several ritual ‘bash the parents’ themes.
The problem is simple. Parents have long memories; most of us remember only too well the pain of being left out by peers at school if you didn’t quite fit in (my mum refused to let me watch sitcoms in the 1970’s. I didn’t get to play the Liver Bird game recreated in the playground. I am still getting over it…). We give in because we fear the alternative; isolation.
So we need help. Yes, we can be responsible parents and monitor kids’ usage, but in the same way that I pleaded for manufacturers (if not the Government) of video games to take more responsibility, we also need mobile phone or ISP providers to back a campaign aimed at kids – by flipping the situation and educating kids about social networking from a young age, the incessant nagging and guilt that parents are subjected to may never happen. By and large, tween kids have yet to find their individuality. If something is perceived by the majority as ‘not done’, then it’s ’not done’.
Persuade BBH to provide the ads at cost and Jessie J and Tiny Tempah to front it. These are not new ideas. They are tried and tested, (they worked to simultaneously persuade kids to drink both more milk and less alcohol). Hey, they could even throw in the dangers of cyber bullying too – yet another issue only just round the corner for me.
Parenting is a tough job, never more so than today. Am I wrong to be asking for help?
At 1000heads we pride ourselves on authentic communication. We never tell audiences what to say when they take to social channels. And we’re immensely proud of our ethical stance. But it’s amazing how often a client will expect us to do precisely that: to control what is being said.
This is old-style reputation management. It comes from the PR discipline, where the whole raison d’etre involves controlling corporate messaging and ensuring that slogans and ideas are repeated, and parroted back by the throng. And because recall of brand messages has been a focus of market research, the perception among clients is that controlling the message should be a priority.
What such businesses fail to understand is that classical PR messages are no longer in control. Conversations happening online are not abiding by messaging guidelines, and this is a *good thing*. Audiences are interacting with brands on the basis of authentic experiences and impressions, not in accordance with a script, thus the information they share is a useful source of research on brand understanding and engagement. The response may not always be the desired one, as we’ve talked about before, but it’s all part of the process.
In the Social Age, reputation management is a matter of listening and responding to interactions, not a matter of controlling conversations. And the scale of responses varies from taking part in conversations, to knowledge aggregation, influencer engagement, problem solving, product optimisation, and supply chain monitoring. It’s not just for externally facing operations either. Social reputation management can involve learning from a firm’s own employee and service relationships.
From a PR perspective this is a revolution; no longer is the act of brand management a broadcast function. It’s not entirely reactive either. It’s more facilitative, and as such, requires sophisticated strategic thinking. Creative scenarios need to be established that will generate data that can inform how a business should develop. It’s not about controlling conversations, but rather about providing a safe, supportive space in which questions may be posed, suggestions can be made, and ideas can be cultivated. As a function, social brand reputation management bears a closer resemblance to objective audience research than traditional PR or advertising. But as such, the return on investment for social business reputation management is potentially much higher than old-style message control, because the output of interactions is designed to improve business processes, and to develop more genuinely constructive and mutually beneficial relationships. While all businesses have to sell their products to stay in business, they are more likely to achieve this end if all stakeholders are engaged, having an interest in the production process. Rather than “customer loyalty”, social reputation management generates audience investment.
As social business professionals, it’s our job to uphold this distinction and to educate our clients about the differences between old-style corporate message control and social reputation management. It can be easy to slip, quietly, into old-style PR in our dealings with clients, just to keep them happy. But that way be dragons. Authenticity requires trust. And any kind of messaging control involves artifice.
Last week, my boiler broke down (bear with me I do have a point here). For two full days during one of the coldest weeks in the year I had no hot water or heating in my flat, and when I called British Gas I was quickly assured that an engineer would be round imminently to fix the problem.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the person on the other end of the phone was charming, personable and efficient. I hung up feeling like a valued (albeit rather cold) customer, secure in the knowledge that I wasn’t going to be left to freeze. But no one turned up. Then, after waiting for more than ten hours, I had a call from the British Gas engineer to say he couldn’t make it that day and would come the next.
As a result, British Gas found its way into my bad books.
The point I want to make (see, I said I had one) is that despite the very good customer service I experienced from one part of the company (in this case, its call centre), the no-show and rather dismissive attitude of another part (the engineer) succeeded in tainting the whole of the British Gas brand for me. I even tweeted about it:
We at 1000heads are strong believers in the fact that in order to become successfully social, brands need to become more human. This is true both on and offline, whether the point of contact between a brand and an individual is someone sitting in a call centre, standing behind a counter or updating a Twitter feed or Facebook wall. People want to be able to put a face to a name, and a personality to a brand. That is what being social means.
But companies are often so preoccupied with ‘humanising’ and engaging people with certain aspects of their brand that they forget that for the average person, the brand is seen as a single entity; if they have a bad experience with one aspect of the organisation, then it will taint their perception of the brand as a whole.
The trick is to get the balance right. Being human should not mean losing sight of the overall message you want to promote, and being professional should not mean coming across as unapproachable or disconnected.
British Gas made the mistake of believing great call centre experiences are the key to customer loyalty, rather than customer service as a whole (although I should mention that it has since apologised and offered me compensation for the extra day I spent feeling like a polar bear in an ice storm). Others have cottoned on to the fact that maintaining a personable, human side to every aspect of their brand is crucial in making people believe and trust the services on offer. Take a look at this little gem. The sign could easily read “Please use other door”, but in saying so much more, it (ahem) says so much more about the brand beyond the doorway….
Here at 1000heads we’ve always had a very strong belief in the value of honest word of mouth for businesses.
That means good and bad.
Our ethics policy explains that we encourage people to discuss what they *really think* about brands, products and services. They won’t get rewarded for one-note glowing reviews. They won’t be given scripts to regurgitate. As long as their conversation is authentic and constructive (i.e. not an abusive rant), we love it, and generally our clients do too.
Because of course the ‘negative’ conversation is usually the most useful stuff. Maybe not if your only objective in social is to engineer a whitewash of promotional-style blah. But definitely if you want to use this space as an opportunity to learn and grow with your customers, and let them in on the process. It’s an amazing chance to get unbiased feedback about how you’re doing, rather than spending thousands on market research that might produce a skewed result – and if you don’t want to hear it, or do something about it, then you have much bigger problems than a grumbly Facebook page.
It’s therefore great to see the latest research from our friends over at Reevoo, the social commerce crew. Digging into the data around the website review plugins they provide for clients such as Tesco, Sharp and Sony, they’ve discovered that allowing bad reviews to coexist with the good ensures that:
68% trust good reviews more when they also see the bad ones
95% suspect censorship or fake scores when they don’t see any negative reviews
people stay longer on your site, giving you more time to persuade them to buy
people view more pages – only 1% leave your site after seeing one badly-reviewed product
Surely the important word here is trust. It’s the lifeblood of effective social brands – that is, ones that don’t just forge great relationships, word of mouth and loyalty, but ones that make money from their social interactions.
I am currently attracting more sulky looks than usual in my house. They are coming from my 12-year-old son, who feels that my level of strictness has reached stratospheric heights, and that I am in risk of damaging our relationship permanently.
Of course I am not alone in this – every parent the world over would sympathise – but whilst my son has always accepted most boundaries with resigned equanimity, it is my new ‘Technology Rules’ that are causing the strop (which of course, merely serves to mitigate my actions).
The problem is that while I am a big fan of technology, fiercely defending it against those who declare that it destroys family life, social skills and kids’ brains (not if it’s employed sensibly and productively), I can’t keep ignoring the studies which point to the dreaded possibility of addiction and, I hate to say it, what look like the early warning signs in my son (ref. the excessive strop).
via softpedia-static
When he started secondary school recently, I finally allowed him to join Facebook. This really did help the transition (he was more worried about losing touch with his old friends than he was about making new ones), but he began feverishly logging on every morning after a rushed breakfast. Playing his pals on the PSP every night was also becoming more important than his homework. That is, until the ‘Technology Rules’…
What I would really appreciate is some help in all this – and I’m not talking just PHSE classes in school or government guidelines which are frustratingly and peculiarly absent in spite of expert pressure to introduce them.
No, I’m referring to brand involvement. My research shows that not one of the gaming or social media brands is taking the opportunity to engage with kids or parents about this. No social networking sites or games producers are addressing this issue in their CSR plans. Nor are they producing content to help kids and parents make sensible choices.
Crucially, it helps educate kids not yet tainted with commercial cynicism to make healthy choices independent of their parents’ nagging.
Is it really such a huge risk for technology companies to admit and take some responsibility for what appears to be adversely affecting almost every family I know?
We’ve managed to cobble together fifteen of the best looking men (all the ugly ones opted out) from the 1000heads London office to participate in this year’s charity fund-raising initiative, Movember.
If you’re unfamiliar with the concept, Movember is a moustache growing charity event held during November each year that raises funds and awareness for prostate cancer.
At the start of Movember us chaps register with a clean shaven face (see the bare-faced group visage above – snapped yesterday) and from henceforth shall be known as Mo Bros. Collectively, we now have the remainder of the month to grow and groom our Mo, raising money along the way to benefit – an issue that’s close to us all – men’s health.
Keep an eye on the 1000heads Twitter stream for constant progress reports over the coming thirty days – 24hrs in and we’ve raised over £100, which makes us very happy indeed!
Here at 1000heads we’re proud for our ethics. We don’t contact anyone under 16 to take part in our campaigns (and if we do it by mistake, as is all too easy online, we apologise sincerely and back out). We only invite people 18 and over to take part in our events.
We believe children should be left well alone by marketing agencies; most of the time it’s more effective talking to their parents, anyway. Our Different Size Feet division is dedicated to understanding families, their drivers and behaviours, and finding ethical, effective ways to harness their influence.
However, we know that not all word of mouth or social media agencies feel the same, so we’re committed to helping build guidelines to protect both young people and the reputation of the WOM industry.
Over the past few months I have been very busy in my role on the WOMMA UK Council, consulting with the Advertising Association about the Bailey Review on child sexualisation and commercialisation in peer to peer marketing campaigns.
It’s an important issue that has had a lot of attention in the press, and we’re proud to have been part of the group of associations and brands committed to shaping a response that is effective, realistic and actionable.
This week Mark Lund, Chair of the Advertising Association’s Children’s Panel, will present the new agreed guidelines to Prime Minister David Cameron. He says: “Bailey recognised that the commercial world has much to offer children and families, but that we need to ensure we observe sensible guidelines in the way we interact with them. These measures will help industry do just that.”
The new guidance reads:
“Young people under the age of 16 should not be employed and directly or indirectly paid or paid-in-kind to actively promote brands, products, goods, services, causes or ideas to their peers, associates or friends.”
At WOMMA UK we’ll be adding it to our Code of Ethics which all our members – including 1000heads – subscribe to.
But to make sure everyone understands what it means in practice, we’re also planning a WOMMA UK panel including some of the leading figures who have put the guideline together, so we can explore the ramifications and give all our members the chance to ask questions about how it will impact on them. Date and time will be announced soon.
What do you think of the guidance? Will it impact on your own work? Do you think this is a necessary piece of protection or a media storm in a teacup?
Add your comments below and get in touch with us here at 1000heads if you have any questions.
A certain little scandal in the UK right now involving The News of the World has left the nation’s journalism reeling, and posed some serious questions for the industry. How was this level of unethical behaviour allowed to happen? How do we prevent it from happening again? What are the standards of journalism now that anyone can blog news and opinions?
With freedom of speech vs regulation at the heart of the debate, some leading writers have touted word of mouth as the force that will evolve and transform the industry.
The Economist has written both a provocative leader and a full special report on the topic of how conversational culture is transforming news, from WikiLeaks to comments on online newspaper blogs.
Their basic premise? That
“…as news becomes more social, participatory, diverse and partisan, it is in many ways returning to the more chaotic, freewheeling and politically charged environment of the era before the emergence of mass media in the 19th century. And although the internet has proved hugely disruptive to journalists, for consumers—who now have a wider choice than ever of news sources and ways of accessing them—it has proved an almost unqualified blessing.”
According to new media author and columnist Jeff Jarvis, crowdsourced fact-checking will now be our only real way to achieve real accountability and reassure readers; “rather than enabling government and media to become even more entwined, we must explode their bonds and open up the business of both for all to see”.
The implication is that for the first time since mass media gained hegemony, we once again live in a public sphere which has regained its power to challenge closed systems and call bullshit. This affects individuals, governments, brands and previously untouchable media conglomerates.
All of them need to start learning how to harness it for good, rather than fearing, suppressing or ridiculing it.
A couple of Saturdays ago, on June 25th to be precise, I had the great pleasure of attending Cybermummy.
If you’re unaware of this event then it would be good to know that Cybermummy managed to bring together over 400 mummy bloggers at their London-based conference to great fanfare; including praise from Sarah Brown on their power as a community andan article in the Independent declaring their rivalry to Mumsnet.
As I walked through the door and into their space, the professionalism of this event was immediately apparent – a slick registration process, kindly ushers to give directions to much needed coffee and an onslaught of brands and PR vying for the attention of everyone in the central room.
Settling in for the opening keynote (and weighed down with free baby paraphernalia), I chatted to some mummy bloggers and looked forward to a good day of panels and presentations. It was, if nothing else, extremely enlightening. By the end of the day, the only thing I could focus on was how self-aware this community of bloggers is. From monetising your blog, to etiquette instructions for brands engaging with bloggers, everything seemed to close in around one key issue – how mummy bloggers can make their income, and more, from their blogs. This is a new profession for the digital age and, if you’re stuck on how to make your cash, another mummy will come along and help you get started… for a fee.
Cybermummy leaders are keen to point out their power: 10 million page views per month and an increase in number of blogs from 100 to 2500 over the past two years are just some of the statistics they have released to the press. Put that in stark black and white and it’s no wonder brands like P&G, Disney and Lego are scrambling to their side.
But is it setting a good precedent?
In the midst of such a rapid increase in numbers of bloggers, a new focus on monetisation and a community that is more self-aware by the minute, how do you find the right voices for your brand? How do you ensure that your engagement is getting you the right results?
In this over saturated corner of the internet, that’s certainly a conundrum.
Once you start focusing on monetising a blog, once you start manipulating the content to make your blog more appealing to brands, that’s when you start losing your authenticity. That honest and genuine voice that consumers look to for opinions on services and products is suddenly diluted and no longer trustworthy. So in amongst those 10 million page views, how many blogs are still having the same impact on readers?
I asked several mummy bloggers about their own reading habits. In particular, I wondered how they viewed each other’s blogs and if they enjoyed reading them. The overwhelming feedback was that sponsored posts, stories of brand sponsored activities and gifts and PR-fed reviews were an instant turn-off leading many to close their browser window. Where one or two would be okay in the past, now it has become so common place among blogs that it seems even the mummy bloggers themselves are bored of reading them.
So is there an answer?
Perhaps not. But a more considered approach is certainly necessary. The highest number of followers, or the biggest page reach, may not always be the right blog for your brand. Because even though they will amplify your message, they won’t advocate it. They might say some nice things, but they won’t evangelise.
Finding the right place online for your brand is always tricky, and the temptation to throw it out to as many blogs and see what sticks is understandable. True loyalty makes a far more powerful voice and finding those voices is the task. But when you do, even if they have lower numbers of followers and fewer page views, the impact will be greater and their words will be read.
Because there’s nothing more powerful online than a truly authentic, evangelical advocate.
I spent yesterday afternoon in a 4-hour Developing Social Business workshop, hosted by the excellent folks at LikeMinds and attended by sterling social practitioners such as Lloyd Davis and Benjamin Ellis and a variety of brands from Stardoll to Investec.
What was most interesting to me was the fact that, although we covered a broad range of topics from organisational models to social media guidelines, internal comms platforms to leadership styles, the conversation kept coming back again and again to the frightening tendency of social to collide the personal with the professional.
How careful should you be when posting opinions online? What are you liable for as an employee? Should employers interfere with personal venues, providing positive guidance and encouragement, or simply step back?
When does a personal opinion have professional impact?
This has become a big roadblock of fear that companies get stuck behind when thinking about becoming social, and there are no easy answers. But it’s essential that we make some kind of peace with this uncertainty . This issue exemplifies the fact that people-centred business necessarily brings a host of ethical and cultural challenges, and often trust, common sense and giving permission to act and yes, maybe fail, are our only enablers to move on.
Benjamin Ellis made the excellent point that this is a relatively new dilemma; in the past our work and personal selves were one, as we lived in geographically bound communities where our identity embraced both. Thanks to the transparency of social media, we are in some ways going back to this state where we have to consider our whole selves as visible to colleagues, bosses, potential employers, competitors and family and friends.
I have three main thoughts.
Basically, this is a good thing. People should not be hiding or masquerading their real selves at work, and employers need to start accepting that for most of their customers or colleagues, discovering that Mark guy cross-dresses at weekends or that Jane hates the HR woman is not going to matter one iota. If someone is moaning about you with good reason, focus on tackling the problem and treating them better, not restricting what they say. If they’re just moaning, fine, it happens. We all do it. It won’t collapse the business.
Online word of mouth may be more widely and permanently visible, but the same principles should apply as offline WOM. Do not libel, do not betray confidences, and do not stand up and yell something in a crowded pub (or Facebook page, or blog, or Twitter feed) you aren’t willing to defend. Even more so if you’ve invited your boss or clients along to that pub (or platform). Otherwise, go ahead and be yourself. But if you want to criticise other people, you have to give them the right to do the same to you.
As Lloyd Davis pointed out, this heightened transparency and accountability means that businesses are going to become increasingly conscious about who they hire. If you don’t think that a candidate truly reflects your values as a business, then why would you want them in your team? Again, to me this is a positive development.
The legal situation around employee word of mouth continues to develop with all the halting contradictions you might expect, but Andrew Gerrard did highlight one important development I was unaware of: a case last year between American Medical Response, who sacked an employee after she criticised her boss on Facebook, and the US National Labour Relations Board, who in response asserted for the first time that employers break the law if they discipline workers who post criticisms on social networks under the First Amendment for free speech.
Of course, there are exceptions. The NLRB’s Facebook page asserts that Facebook comments can lose protected status depending on where the discussion takes place, the subject matter, the nature of the outburst and whether the comments were provoked by an employer’s unfair labour practice. But in general, people simply have to be allowed to speak their mind, even if it is unpalatable to you.
There is so much more to say on this, but it is clear that businesses simply have to stop being afraid of their people, and vice versa. Micro-monitoring and disciplining of word of mouth is not sustainable, and ineffective. Approaching the issue with honesty, realism and a willingness to try is the only way past the roadblock.
